The Most Effective Rifle of WWII?

SPWaW is a tactical squad-level World War II game on single platoon or up to an entire battalion through Europe and the Pacific (1939 to 1945).

Moderator: MOD_SPWaW

Post Reply
User avatar
KG Erwin
Posts: 8366
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Cross Lanes WV USA

The Most Effective Rifle of WWII?

Post by KG Erwin »

Arguable, of course, but the semi-automatic M1 Garand has gotta rank near the top, if not THE top for range, durability and accuracy.

Forget the bolt-action rifles. They'd had their day as line-infantry weapons, except in the hands of snipers.

WWII-era assault rifles/SMGs? Great for close combat, but range too limited.

This is another reason why those poor dumb American rubes in their combat work-clothes had such a tactical advantage over the cool-looking Germans : the Americans could pour out an impressive amount of lead from just those rifles. [:'(]
Image
dje
Posts: 45
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 5:06 pm

RE: The Most Effective Rifle of WWII?

Post by dje »

I would pick the BAR. Im not really sure about the reliability part, I have read that Marines thought it was unbreakable. Its range/firepower and intimidation factor are certainly legendary.

I have read in several stories that the reasssuring sound of the BAR hammering away improved the moral of the troops. Heavy and big with a small magazine for a automatic it was not effective as a mg or as a rifle. Psychologically it was as effective as a famethrower. I think I would rather have a BAR on my side during a fight over the M1 (although the M1 is a great rifle also)
I will see you on the beach!
User avatar
String
Posts: 2661
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 7:56 pm
Location: Estonia

RE: The Most Effective Rifle of WWII?

Post by String »

ORIGINAL: dje

I would pick the BAR. Im not really sure about the reliability part, I have read that Marines thought it was unbreakable. Its range/firepower and intimidation factor are certainly legendary.

I have read in several stories that the reasssuring sound of the BAR hammering away improved the moral of the troops. Heavy and big with a small magazine for a automatic it was not effective as a mg or as a rifle. Psychologically it was as effective as a famethrower. I think I would rather have a BAR on my side during a fight over the M1 (although the M1 is a great rifle also)

If you call a BAR intimidating what do you call MG42?
Surface combat TF fanboy
User avatar
Arctic Blast
Posts: 1157
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 5:58 am
Contact:

RE: The Most Effective Rifle of WWII?

Post by Arctic Blast »

Well, for one thing, I'd call it 'not a rifle'. [:D]
Meditation on inevitable death should be performed daily.
User avatar
KG Erwin
Posts: 8366
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Cross Lanes WV USA

RE: The Most Effective Rifle of WWII?

Post by KG Erwin »

ORIGINAL: Arctic Blast

Well, for one thing, I'd call it 'not a rifle'. [:D]

Right. The Americans were the ONLY nation to employ a semi-automatic rifle as regular issue to their troops, at least from 1942 onwards. George Patton himself called the Garand the best weapon ever.

The old Springfield was retained, in modified form, as a sniper rifle.

All things considered, yeah, the typical American soldier, regardless of theater, had a powerful weapon in his hands.
Image
User avatar
String
Posts: 2661
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 7:56 pm
Location: Estonia

RE: The Most Effective Rifle of WWII?

Post by String »

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

ORIGINAL: Arctic Blast

Well, for one thing, I'd call it 'not a rifle'. [:D]

Right. The Americans were the ONLY nation to employ a semi-automatic rifle as regular issue to their troops, at least from 1942 onwards. George Patton himself called the Garand the best weapon ever.

The old Springfield was retained, in modified form, as a sniper rifle.

All things considered, yeah, the typical American soldier, regardless of theater, had a powerful weapon in his hands.

I think he was referring to the BAR.
Surface combat TF fanboy
User avatar
KG Erwin
Posts: 8366
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Cross Lanes WV USA

RE: The Most Effective Rifle of WWII?

Post by KG Erwin »

Ok, let me be clear -- I'm referring to standard-issue squad weapons, NOT light automatic weapons.

I suppose there might be some confusion becuase the US was the only country that issued a semi-automatic rifle as standard equipment. This makes the M1 unique.

I'll have to look around, but Bill Wilder wrote a great article about the Garand. It's been posted here before. "A New Weapon for a New War", I believe it was called. An excellent read.
Image
dje
Posts: 45
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 5:06 pm

RE: The Most Effective Rifle of WWII?

Post by dje »

ORIGINAL: String
ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

ORIGINAL: Arctic Blast

Well, for one thing, I'd call it 'not a rifle'. [:D]

Right. The Americans were the ONLY nation to employ a semi-automatic rifle as regular issue to their troops, at least from 1942 onwards. George Patton himself called the Garand the best weapon ever.

The old Springfield was retained, in modified form, as a sniper rifle.

All things considered, yeah, the typical American soldier, regardless of theater, had a powerful weapon in his hands.

I think he was referring to the BAR.

BAR-Browning Automatic Rifle. MG42 Machine Gun 42'
I will see you on the beach!
User avatar
String
Posts: 2661
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 7:56 pm
Location: Estonia

RE: The Most Effective Rifle of WWII?

Post by String »

ORIGINAL: dje

ORIGINAL: String
ORIGINAL: KG Erwin




Right. The Americans were the ONLY nation to employ a semi-automatic rifle as regular issue to their troops, at least from 1942 onwards. George Patton himself called the Garand the best weapon ever.

The old Springfield was retained, in modified form, as a sniper rifle.

All things considered, yeah, the typical American soldier, regardless of theater, had a powerful weapon in his hands.

I think he was referring to the BAR.

BAR-Browning Automatic Rifle. MG42 Machine Gun 42'

Yes i know what BAR means, but that doesn't mean that it was a rifle as we know them. Having almost twice the weight of the Garand it was never going to be a replacement for squad issued rifles, the ones that every infantryman carried. Neither was it a real LMG. Instead it was somewhere inbetween and couldn't do either job very well.

It was, by all accounts, a reliable weapon and sure, as any automatic weapon it had its effect on morale, but saying that it was anything special is a bit too much.

But then again, like you, I may be biased as I have hands on experience only with MG42 (mg3) which was our squad machinegun.



edit: I agree with KG Erwin on the M1 Garand issue. It was by far the best squad issued rifle in ww2. Sure, MP44 was more revolutionary but afaik it was very rarely issued at squadlevel and mostly used by NCO's or special fireteams.
Surface combat TF fanboy
User avatar
Arctic Blast
Posts: 1157
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 5:58 am
Contact:

RE: The Most Effective Rifle of WWII?

Post by Arctic Blast »

Yeah, I was referring to the BAR. From everything I've read about the M1 (admittedly, not a whole lot), it was one hell of a weapon. This is, after all, a rifle that was used in the deserts of North
Africa, the forests of Europe, and the jungles of the Pacific islands...and it functioned well in all of these different environments. Reliability, I think, has to be criterion numero uno when judging a weapon's effectiveness, and the M1 had that in spades.
Meditation on inevitable death should be performed daily.
User avatar
Goblin
Posts: 5418
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 7:57 pm
Location: Erie,Pa. USA
Contact:

RE: The Most Effective Rifle of WWII?

Post by Goblin »

I would have to go with the M1 Garand also.



Goblin
roth
Posts: 41
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2005 4:39 pm

RE: The Most Effective Rifle of WWII?

Post by roth »

I don't see any serious contender against the Garand, especially given Patton's endorsement. I'm not aware of any similarly glowing testament by another senior commander in favor of a different weapon.

To expand this thread, since I think the Garand M-1 is a slam-dunk for WWII, would anyone contest my contention that the small arm of the XX Century is the AK-47?
MR
azraelck
Posts: 581
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 5:00 am

RE: The Most Effective Rifle of WWII?

Post by azraelck »

The BAR was not designed as either a rifle or MG, and the attempts to call it either, or say it didn't do it's job well, are flat out wrong. It was developed due to the conditions of the Western Front in WWI, to provide squads with accurate, mobile suppressing fire. MGs cannot do this. The BAR was designed to be fired from the hip, thus it's heavy weight was a necessity to keep recoil down. For the squad darting from shell-hole to shell-hole for cover, 20 rounds was enough to keep the Huns under cover.

It's service as a light MG was against it's design, yet it still did well there. No one disregards the Bren gun, when it's top-mounted magazine made it a target, and only 30 rounds is pitiful for a LMG (which the Bren actually was). It served in it's role exceptionally well, providing mobile, long range, accurate fire while the squad MG was still being set up.

It should not be compared to weapons outside it's class. Yes, it was not an effective rifle. It was never meant to be one either. It's also not an effective MG. It wasn't an MG either. Nor was it an assault rifle, though a few I've spoken to consider it the fore-runner of such weapons (their opinion, not mine). It was an automatic rifle; mobile enough to not have to stop and set up a bi-pod so it would be controllable, powerful enough to take on any infantry, and rapid enough ROF to keep anyone crouched down under cover long enough for the LMG guy to get set up and get a bead on his target.

The best rifle will likely be considered the M1 Garand. It was the only semi-automatic rifle deployed in large scale during the war, it served into Korea, and served in every condition imaginable without failure. WWII saw no end of very high quality rifles; but the M1 Garand tops them all.

The best assault rifle question falls to either the AK-47 or M-16. The M-16 saw some teething problems, but has become a supremely reliable, if a bit under-powered weapon. The AK's 7.62x39mm cartridge is not quite as effective as it could be (issues with the heavy bullet being too slow), but it a supremely simple and reliable weapon. Both are literally everywhere, arming both the finest soldiers and most despicable criminals, along with a number of civilians here in the US, where for the most part we are allowed to defend ourselves, and murderer's and rapists aren't given full protection under the law. I'd say the AK-47 has the better service record, if only because the M-16 had early problems. Also, while neither cartridge is perfect, I'd say the 7.62x39mm is the worse of the two (IMO, the optimal cartridge would be a caliber in between the two, with about the same or maybe slightly longer case length. But I digress). So the AK gets a slight nod, barely. IMO.
"Wait... Holden was a cat. Suddenly it makes sense."
User avatar
Hussar
Posts: 47
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2000 10:00 am
Location: Leominster U.K

RE: The Most Effective Rifle of WWII?

Post by Hussar »

Sorry gents but am going to have to disagree with you (if only in principal). The No 1 Mk 3 SMLE in all of its versions is by far the better infantry rifle. Its accuracy, durability and lethality are all unparalleled. I cannot argue that the M1 had a higher rate of fire which would suit the poor marksmanship skills of the bulk of the US Armed forces, but in the hands of a professional British Infantryman the Lee-Enfield is unbeatable. 10 round box magazine which can be topped up (unlike the Garand's shoot until empty clip), accurate out to 600 yards (yes I know most engagements are at less than 200), simplicity, and still in use around the world today in vast numbers. (10,000 Afghans can't all be wrong!)
Sits back now and waits for the large numbers of US Garand supporters to whinge. Oh. and another point. Stick a 10" sword bayonet on it and the Lee Enfield knocks spots off the M1 in a hand to hand fight....."They don't like it up 'em Captain Mainwaring".
Honi soit qui mal y pense.

For God and Parliament.
azraelck
Posts: 581
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 5:00 am

RE: The Most Effective Rifle of WWII?

Post by azraelck »

I agree that the SMLE is a fine battle rifle. I disagree with the arrogant and baseless assumption that just because the U.S. issued semi-automatics, their marksmanship ability was in any significant way impaired. Battle field conditions are far different than sipping tea on a range, and on the killing fields the American GIs and Marines proved themselves more than capable of killing German, Japanese, and Italian foes; just as well as their British, Polish, French, Dutch, or Soviet counterparts. On the range, the Garand remains a common weapon in competitions, the SMLE and No 4 Mk 1 lost to obscurity. It has long been able to match any other battle rifle built in accuracy, if not exceed them entirely.

The SMLE was horribly difficult to manufacture and expensive, which is why the US built the P14 Enfield design (a Mauser copy, essentially) to supplement it, the P14 (M1917 in the US) equipping the majority of both US and British forces in WWI.

Do not let your hatred of America cloud any judgement. The M1 Garand has held more influence of future designs, causing most major countries to develop a semi-automatic battle rifle. There are no SMLE copies or duplicates outside of the Khyber Pass Copies, which are very poorly made out of whatever materials available, based on a real rifle, and used in irregular forces with wildly varying degrees of quality, and equally wildly varying degrees of ammunition quality. The M1 Garand is in production today, and is even a standard issue service arm in at least one South American country, still chambered for good old .30-06.

The cartridge itself is wildly used and almost universally praised. The .303 British round was criticized when new for being outdated, long before WWI and WWII. The Lee Enfield itself was almost replaced, along with the cartridge, had it not been for WWI; and a new round would have added to a logistical nightmare. It's replacement rifle fared equally well on the battle field.

The only rifle that saw use in WWII that has just as much an effect on small arms and could be considered for this is the Mauser Karabiner Model 1898 Kurz. That rifle was duplicated repeatedly, not only by the US but Britain as well, and many, many other countries. It still sees extensive and ironic use in the hands of Israelis, as well as in the hands of various irregular forces. Modern sporting rifles using the exact same action are made today. I only discount it because it's effect; which included some things that were copied by the SMLE, was far earlier, being a proven design prior to WWI. The only thing the SMLE did was do away with seperate long and calvary-length rifles, thus influencing somewhat the K98k, in that it was a shorter rifle. The M1903 had already done so, and after reviewing battlefield conditions during WWI, it is more likely that the thought to shorten the rifles would have occurred anyway, whether the SMLE ever existed.

Yes, the SMLE is a fine and capable battle rifle. It also had a weaker action, an outdated cartridge, is difficult to adapt to a more modern cartridge, and did not have any outstanding reputation for any high degree of accuracy. Only the Mauser and it's derivatives, like the M1903, did. The SMLE also had the fasted bolt action design ever, and still holds the world record at 38 shots fired in under 60 seconds. The M1 Garand was simply a more revolutionary design, and proved itself equally capable of both the intense fire that characterized all battlefields, whether they held Tommys or not; and highly accurate fire necessary for sniper duty. The M1 actually saw more use as a sniper rifle. The M1 simply had more of a lasting effect, and it's higher rate of fire proved to be more useful on the battle field than the slower rate of fire and imagined higher accuracy of the SMLE and No 4 Mk 1. Had the SMLE been widely copied, used as the basis for thousands upon thousands of sporting rifles, and still in major production outside of basements and caves, you could say it had a lasting effect. However, both the Garand and Mauser had long reaching, more profound effects, beyond becoming a fall-back rifle in case of war.

Your arrogant hallucinations are both insulting and degrading to Americans who left home to die across an entire ocean fighting a foe that they weren't interested in, and equally insulting and degrading to the English, Welsh, Irish, and Scottish soldiers who fought and died along side them. Not a one from any country would be sitting up eyes lined up with his sights looking for his head to get shot off. They pop up, take a few shots, then drop back into cover.
"Wait... Holden was a cat. Suddenly it makes sense."
Post Reply

Return to “Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns”